data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a45b6/a45b68457b62fb4c38b377a1b2b98154c5790ecf" alt=""
For those who are wondering how to reply to the 'news' of the 'Jesus tomb' Ben Witherington has a
good initial response.
These groups are usually, but mistakenly, called “parachurch” as if they are not the Church (that is, the worldwide Body of Christ), but instead occupy a shadowy zone “beside” the Church. I use the term “shadowy” to allude to the suspicion and even outright hostility with which they are viewed by some Christians—not least by many clergy and denominational leaders. For such groups often are seen as distractions and diffusions of the Church’s resources, not least its money.
Thus we hear pastors urging congregations to tithe first to the local—which is to say, the “true”—church, and then (perhaps) to other ministries. I respond that such groups are not churches (that is, congregations or denominations), but they are certainly part of the Church. Indeed, I see them as the Church of Jesus Christ eployed in particular modes to accomplish particular purposes.Yet such groups clearly are Christ’s Church mobilized and active in worthy pursuits. Thus the term “parachurch” really won’t do. I suggest instead the term paracongregational.”
Grey areas do exist in some special purpose groups, to be sure, particularly around the sacraments: Should they be administered, and, if so, by whom? But most do not ever consider baptizing or serving communion. And their utterly voluntary nature means that church discipline is not exerted (although one must allow that church discipline is hard to find anywhere on the ecclesial landscape today).
...such groups often are seen as distractions and diffusions of the Church’s resources, not least its money. Thus we hear pastors urging congregations to tithe first to the local—which is to say, the “true”—church, and then (perhaps) to other ministries....
Why not support both, therefore, with glad hearts, open wallets, and ready hands?For the New Testament churches supported and benefited from the apostle Paul then he was resident in their congregations, and they supported him in his independent, organized ministry to benefit others when he was away. Maybe I’m just an old-fashioned and simplistic Bible believer, but this idea doesn’t seem all that difficult to me.
I have no problem with giving to parachurch organisations. But the very passage that Stackhouse quotes shows that this should primarily be the local church that is giving to the parachurch, not the individual Christian. I don't want to lay down a law here (I don't think there even are laws on 'giving' except that of generosity & no compulsion). There may be personal opportunities and friendships that would mean we would want to support particular ministries and individuals with needs we know about.
However, to suggest that the individual should have no priority of giving to the local chruch rather than the parachurch is to give in to the individualistic spirit of the day, which suggests that my personal wisdom as to what to do with the funds is higher than the combined wisdom of those that I have covenanted with, and my responsibility to my own personal portfolio is higher than my responsibility to the body to which I belong.
1) We can’t start a conversation about homosexual marriage by talking about homosexual marriage. We need to talk about a biblical view of what is good, beautiful & true.
2) We cannot talk about sex without talking about marriage.
3) We cannot talk about sex without talking about the bible.
4) We cannot talk about homosexuality as if it is the problem, rather than a symptom of a deeper problem of idolatry, which is a problem we ALL share.
5) We need to be ready to give significant support to those with ongoing struggles with homosexuality.
6) We need to be those who take out the power of the gospel as the only hope for sexual sinners. There is NO sexual sin that cannot be forgiven.
7) We must be the people who love homosexuals more than homosexuals love homosexuality. Sinners grow to love their sin. The only way that we ever got saved was that someone loved us more than we loved our sin.
8) We need to be the people who believe God’s truth about homosexuality. We can lose the battle on the law of the land – but we cannot compromise our witness.
It was a good gentle clear introduction to parenting.
Biblical foundations.
1) Nurture relationship with the Lord
2) Nurture relationship with spouse
3) Set biblical goals
4) What’s your plan?
A PLAN:
1) Build healthy relationships
2) Model a godly life
3) Teach appropriate behaviours
4) Weaken inappropriate behaviour.
In the second plenary session, Al Mohler outlined
1) Denial – don’t talk about it, ignore it, assume it is not there
2) Deification. We are living in a culture today that is re-deifying & sacramentalising sex. We cannot combat this by any kind of denial. All this means is that our children will be educated into a pagan understanding of sex. If we don’t educate the culture will.
1) Marriage: this is the normal call. Adulthood normally means marriage biblically. Adulthood comes with adult responsibility.
2) Celibacy: this is not for self, but it is so that you could be deployed in KINGDOM MINISTRY without fetters. It is accompanied by a gift from God not to burn with passion.
a. Partnership
b. Protection
c. Pleasure
d. Procreation
4 Enemies of Sex & Marriage:
Mohler was certainly his most provocative when talking about Delay: 100 years ago the average delay between puberty & marriage was 4-7 years. People reached puberty later and got married younger. Now 1o-15 years between puberty & marriage is often the case. God gave us a powerful sex-drive, because he intends something more powerful.
As young people struggle with lust the ‘denial’ approach would ask God to remove the sex drive. The ‘deification’ approach would say that the sex drive must be satisfied NOW. The biblical approach for those not called to life-long celibacy is to seek to marry a godly spouse and enjoy God’s wonderful gift of sex in the safety of His covenantal framework.
I hope that young men were given a vision of adulthood with responsibility. I hope that young women were not discouraged into thinking of a ‘left on the shelf’ mentality.The Conference has an incredible choice of 22 elective sessions, of which each delegate gets to choose only two. This makes the $10 mp3 of all the sessions incredibly good value.
This morning I attended Steve Wellum's introduction to a biblical theology of sex. As well as presenting a good brief biblical theology of sex (much of which was going over the ground that Mohler went over last night, and I guess pre-empting the other Geneneral Sessions) there was also an excellent & clear introduction to biblical theology more generally.
Elective Session 1: Steve Wellum – A Biblical Theology of Sex.
1) What is Biblical Theology?
Biblical Theology is an entire discipline asking what the whole of the bible teaches, attempting to do justice to the unfolding plan of God, and particularly how the biblical revelation finds its fulfillment in the coming of Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 1:9, Hebrews 1:1-4)
2) How do we do Biblical Theology?
a. Follow the Bible’s own internal grid:
Creation – Fall – Redemption – New Creation
These are the key themes in any biblical worldview and must be applied to any biblical theology.
b. Observe the 3 horizons of biblical interpretation
i. Textual (What does it say in its immediate context)
ii. Ephochal (How does it relate to what has previously been revealed)
iii. Canonical (How does this relate to what is revealed later)
3) What is a Biblical Theology of Sex?
Steve then applied this method of biblical theology to the area of sex & marriage.
a) Creation: Genesis 1-2
b. Genesis 3: Fall
c. Redemption
d. New Creation
Unless we are engaging on the level of worldview, we remain unready to give a reason for the hope that we have.
We can’t just say “you are wrong about sex, because the preacher, my mother and I say so.” This claiming of the moral high ground is ineffective, firstly, because those with radically different worldviews are claiming moral high ground over and against a Christian worldview. So, for example it is now those who hold homosexuality to be wrong are seen as morally deficient, not those who are practicing it. but, More significantly, by merely engaging at the level of morality rather than worldview, we fail to present the beauty of a Christian morality that results from its display of the gospel.
He went on to outline five areas which any worldview must be able to account for.
1) How did we all get here?
2) How did the world get broken?
3) How can it be fixed?
4) Where is it all going?
To these central questions, we must also be able to add,
5) What is the significance of sex?
In each of these we must not only assert the Christian perspective, but argue how the Christian worldview's response to each of these questions makes the most sense of the world in which we live. The Christian worldview is robustly ready to talk about sex. The Christian worldview doesn’t begin with the act of sex, but with the significance of humanity: part of what it means is that we are the only creature consciously able to know, worship, obey him. We are also the only creature to be capable of understanding the meaning of sex.
In Genesis 2 Adam realises that he has a need. It is the natural state of a man even before the fall, that he needs a bond even closer than the parental bond in order to fulfil the mandate to live for the glory of God.
Thus, even now, God’s plan for sex is so perfect that keeping ourselves for marriage & in marriage is as close as it gets in this world to being naked & not ashamed: they were not just naked in front of each other & not ashamed they were naked before God, and not ashamed.